Apologies if this has been definitively answered above, but is acceptance by Rock Rail SW (who own the trains and lease them to SWR) the same as acceptance by SWR, or do SWR have their own acceptance practice / criteria over-and-above those required by Rock Rail SW?
The terms of the contract are commercial and not published.
From what I gather, seems SWR acceptance is based on completing fault free running (I know some other fleets have been 250 miles, but don’t know parameters for the 701s)
Rock Rail presumably pay for and own the delivered trains at an earlier stage, based on wouldn’t be able to raise a legal charge if didn’t own them. I am guessing they have taken ownership of the 17 with charges, but might own more. However their accounts show large amounts of compensation from manufacture which suggests there are conditions that are supposed to be met that aren’t.
The legal charges are there, as Rock Rail have borrowed funds from banks etc. And if they don’t keep up payments the lender can take ownership and sell it to cover their outstanding loan (same basic process as a domestic mortgage).
My hunch (based on finance knowledge, ignoring the engineering side) is that condition to buy them was met (built and delivered), but the faults and lack of reliability is resulting in penalty clause triggering, so effectively getting lease rentals covered by manufacturer rather than from SWR, as whilst faulty mean cannot be leased to SWR. Without knowing the terms probably have few weeks to complete fault free running, after which receipts (either lease or compensation cut in). Possibly Rock Rail are making a short term gain as the penalty would normally be more than rental to discourage delays.